METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, January 20, 1998

Council Chamber

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Members Present:  Lisa Naito (Chair), Patricia McCaig (Vice Chair), Don Morissette

Members Absent:    None

Also Present:    Susan McLain

Chair Naito called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 1997, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

2.  IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT TO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO COMPLY WITH HB 2493

Chair Naito thanked Councilors McCaig and Morissette for sitting on the Growth Management Committee for 1998, and said she would do her best to run efficient and productive meetings. She said she would like to discuss how to implement the boundary change requirements.

Mark Turpel, Senior Program Supervisor, Growth Management Services, said there is concern about meeting the State requirements regarding the urban growth boundary (UGB). The Metro Council established the amount of expansion needed when it passed the Urban Growth Report on October 23, 1997. The State Legislature requires that the need must be addressed in two years, with fifty percent of the need met in one year. Mr. Turpel’s memo to Chair Naito, included under item two in the agenda packet, does not address the productivity analysis. He asked for direction from the committee about reversing the order of master planning and UGB expansion, due to the extensive work needed for master planning.

Councilor Morissette recommended that the committee bring back the proposal. He said he is not suggesting that the process be reversed, but he feels that a balance needs to be found in order to meet local jurisdictions’ goals and the State’s legal requirements.

Councilor McLain said the committee should discuss the productivity of the urban reserves, and clarify what the committee means by the term “urban reserves.” She said that under the Metro Code, the Council decided to complete urban reserve master planning before bringing urban reserves into the UGB in order achieve better planning and higher standards.

Councilor McCaig asked Mr. Turpel for a brief history of the conflict.

Mr. Turpel said that the Council adopted the urban reserves and then established the projected need. In the meantime, the State Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2493, which states that projected need must be met in two years. Metro’s requirement for urban reserve master planning was adopted before HB 2493.

Councilor McCaig asked if Metro had testified to the State Legislature about the difficulties caused by HB 2493.

Councilor Morissette said he believes Metro lobbied in favor of HB 2493.

Chair Naito said that Metro did not take a position on the bill. She said HB 2493 includes the possibility of time extensions.

Councilor McCaig said it would be preferable to avoid these problems altogether. She asked Mr. Turpel if he had recommended against time extensions as an alternative.

Mr. Turpel said he had recommended that Metro not begin the process with the assumption that time extensions will be granted.

Councilor McCaig suggested that Metro could talk with the State and try to allay its fears. She said the purpose of adopting urban reserve master plans before expanding the UGB is to more thoroughly plan how the land will be used. She asked Mr. Turpel how that goal would be addressed if the steps were reversed.

Mr. Turpel said that urban reserve planning will still be required if the steps are reversed. If the proposal is adopted and the UGB is expanded to include all of the urban reserves, the land will still be protected by its rural zoning until the master planning is complete.

Councilor McCaig said that by adopting a UGB amendment before adopting urban reserve master planning, the Council would not have the answers to all of its questions regarding the sites. She asked Mr. Turpel is this was correct.

Mr. Turpel agreed. He said that currently, property owners, developers, and local jurisdictions take on a significant amount of risk when they develop urban reserve master plans, because there is no guarantee that the urban reserve will be added to the UGB. Amending the UGB first, and then completing the master planning would lower the risk. He said a number of issues should be discussed before the Council chooses to reverse the process.

Councilor McCaig said Mr. Turpel’s memo does not address the general confusion and lack of detail regarding urban reserves master planning. She said the current debate is a byproduct of the confusion, and asked when the Council will address the root of the problem.

Mr. Turpel said the issue of who is responsible for what has been left open to provide flexibility. A byproduct of that flexibility, however, is a lack of clarity.

Councilor McCaig said the problem runs deeper than a desire for maximum flexibility. There is a general confusion among local governments, private citizens, and Metro staff concerning who is responsible for what, when it will happen, and who is responsible for the cost.

Councilor Morissette said the proposal is a possible way to move the process along and address the problems currently facing the region. He said the proposal does not change Metro’s standards.

Councilor McLain said the Council will not know the productivity of an urban reserve until its master plan is completed. A memo dated December 16, 1997, proposed that the Council address two issues in 1998. First would be compliance with State law and Metro’s review of the UGB. Second would be clarification of the urban concept planning process. The Council has a March deadline for updating the Metro Code as it relates to the UGB process.

Councilor McCaig asked Mr. Turpel how many acres the Council is discussing. She said in her experience the Council has amended the UGB parcel by parcel.

Mr. Turpel said past UGB amendments have been quasi-judicial, usually initiated by the property owner. The upcoming UGB amendments would be legislative amendments, initiated by the Council.

Councilor McCaig asked for a rough idea of how many acres the Council will vote on and how the amendments will be presented.

Mr. Turpel said the Council established that 32,400 dwelling units and 2,900 jobs cannot be accommodated within the current UGB. The UGB expansion will probably translate to a range of 4,000 to 6,000 acres, depending on the productivity of the different urban reserves.

Councilor McCaig asked Mr. Turpel to describe the Council’s UGB amendment process.

Mr. Turpel said the suggested process is to complete the productivity analysis, present the information to the Council, and then propose a legislative amendment.

Councilor McCaig asked if the amendment would be for the total acreage. The Council looked at the sites parcel by parcel during the urban reserve process. She said she is trying to understand the line of activity so that she can understand its impact.

Mr. Turpel said he would characterize some of the urban reserve areas as logical extensions of existing urban areas and neighborhoods. To his knowledge, there are no major issues concerning those sites. However, master plans for some of the larger urban reserves appear to be much more controversial.

Councilor McCaig said she would feel more comfortable about reordering the process in the case of the less complex urban reserves. There are other cases, however, in which the size, scope, and geography of an urban reserve, or the complexity of the governing jurisdictions, would require a different level of information before she would feel comfortable proceeding.

Mr. Turpel said one option would be to continue to require that master planning is done first, and try to add the first fifty percent of the established need this year and allow more time for the urban reserve planning for the larger areas. Another option is to reorder the process, address any issues involved, and possibly add all of the land needed in one legislative amendment, then begin the urban reserve master planning as it was always intended.

Councilor McCaig said it could go either way.

Mr. Turpel agreed, and said that legislative amendments are probably no less painful than the quasi-judicial amendments. Therefore it may make sense to do them all at once.

Chair Naito asked for additional comments from the committee. There were none. She asked for comments from the public.

Peggy Lynch, Post Office Box 1757, Beaverton, asked what legal jurisdiction Metro would have on the urban reserves if the reserves were amended into the UGB. She said it is her understanding that the process was designed as it was in order to allow Metro to have jurisdiction over the urban reserves, or to have some hammer to enforce Metro’s Code for urban reserve planning prior to making the UGB decision. If the Council chooses to commit to an expansion, what then binds a local jurisdiction to Metro’s Code?

Chair Naito said Ms. Lynch made an excellent point, and the Council will most likely ask legal counsel to consider her question during its review of the proposal.

Councilor McCaig said she had two final questions. First, what is the calendar for making this decision? Second, what is the impact of the decision on the urban reserves currently pending before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)?

Chair Naito said legal counsel could answer Councilor McCaig’s second question. Chair Naito said she has prepared a proposal on the productivity analysis. She did not bring it to the meeting, however, because Metro will do a productivity analysis under either scenario. The Council cannot begin master planning until it has done a productivity analysis and knows what the terrain might hold in terms of slopes, rivers, transit connections, et cetera. She said she hopes to have a request for proposal (RFP) on this issue to direct to move forward at the next Growth Management Committee meeting. She said she does not have a firm timeline for making a decision, but would like it to go to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) for discussion.

Councilor McCaig asked Chair Naito if the productivity issue is separate from, but included in, the reordering proposal. She asked if the reordering proposal follows whatever the Council chooses to do with the productivity RFP.

Chair Naito said she believes the productivity analysis will be needed under either approach, depending on what the Council chooses to do. She hopes the committee will join her in giving direction to staff to bring this topic back for discussion at the next committee meeting. She said legal counsel may have questions about this approach, and members of the public will want to see it and review it.

Councilor McCaig said there has been discussion about pursuing a work program predicated on reordering the UGB amendments. She asked if the Council would be making a decision on this topic if it decides to authorize the productivity RFP. Chair Naito answered that the two issues would be kept separate.

Councilor Morissette said that planning and coordinating infrastructure is an expensive process, and people are being asked to master plan on the gamble that a particular urban reserve will be added to the UGB. He said the Council has determined the amount of expansion needed; the next step is to solve the challenges. Reordering the process is one potential way to deal with the problem and not ignore it until the Council is forced to make a decision. He asked Mr. Turpel if he is correct that little master planning is occurring now, except for in a few particular parcels. Mr. Turpel agreed.

Councilor Morissette said that everyone is waiting. He said it would be very helpful to give people some security that something will happen once they meet the master planning requirements. He said he agreed with Councilor McCaig that it could have been explained much better, but as the Council uncovers problems, it should find the challenge and solve it. He said reordering the process is one way the Council may want to do that.

Chair Naito said she thinks in terms of master planning, the Council is faced with the chicken and the egg scenario. People are not sure that they want to go forward because there is no assurance that they will ultimately be accepted in the UGB, even if they provide a master plan that meets all the requirements. She said there are some very difficult issues with which to grapple, such as budgetary issues and the roles of local governments and Metro.

Councilor McCaig asked Chair Naito if she plans to address broader issue of the lack of specificity in master planning.

Chair Naito said it is certainly an issue which the committee will have to address.

Councilor McLain asked Chair Naito if she has given staff a timeline on this issue, or if it is open-ended.

Chair Naito said she has requested that staff bring the proposal back to the next committee meeting.

Councilor McLain asked if there will be an opportunity to take the issue to MPAC on January 28, 1998. Chair Naito said yes, that was the intent.

Mr. Turpel said he believes the item is on MPAC’s tentative agenda.

3.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES:

·  EVALUATING ACHIEVEMENT OF TARGETS SET IN THE 1997 URBAN GROWTH REPORT (E.G. DENSITY, INFILL, OPEN SPACES AND UNDERBUILD) AS A REGION AND BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

·  OTHER PERFORMANCE MEASURES RELATING TO REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

Mr. Turpel directed the committee’s attention to the Performance Measures for managing the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, Preliminary Draft, December 1997, included under item three in the agenda packet. The draft was prepared by the Performance Measures Subcommittee of MPAC. The intent of the draft is to address issues pertaining to the UGB and its management. It addresses the performance measures that Metro should consider to measure progress. The subcommittee has requested direction from the Growth Management Committee on three issues. First, should the performance measures for the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the broader performance measures for Regional Framework Plan be integrated? Second, the subcommittee feels that the corrective actions should not be determined until the Regional Framework Plan performance measures have been completed, or are at least underway. Finally, the subcommittee would like to know if the draft meets the Council’s general intent as described in Title 9 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.

Ms. Lynch, Vice-Chair, MPAC Subcommittee on Performance Measures, said the draft report was prepared in conjunction with staff, MPAC members, and a number of people representing various interests. The intent of the draft is to reach an agreement on reasonable performance measures regarding management of the UGB and its narrow focus to comply with the law. The subcommittee supports integrating the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Regional Framework Plan performance measures. She directed the committee’s attention to the memo to MPAC members from the Performance Measures Subcommittee, dated December 9, 1997, regarding the Progress Report. A copy of the memo is included under item three in the agenda packet. Ms. Lynch said it is important to her that the performance measures be expanded to include a broader range of consideration and that the Regional Framework Plan chapters be used as a guide for other topics of performance measures.

Ms. Lynch said the subcommittee particularly seeks direction from the Growth Management Committee regarding corrective actions. Corrective actions have not been done before. The subcommittee would like an opportunity to see one report of the performance measures in order to better understand how they will relate to corrective actions that the Council may choose to take. Ms. Lynch said the performance measures are interconnected: the Council cannot take one performance measure and have one result. The subcommittee is cautious about corrective actions, and hopes the committee will agree to set up the performance measures, review the report produced by these performance measures, and then make a decision regarding corrective actions.

Chair Naito asked legal counsel if it had reviewed the preliminary draft.

Larry Shaw, Senior Assistant Council, said yes. He thinks legal counsel will suggest slight amendments. He said the performance measures can be helpful to Metro in the pending litigation on the Urban Growth Report.

Councilor McCaig commented on the three policy determination questions in Mr. Turpel’s memo to Chair Naito, dated January 15, 1998, regarding the January 20, 1998, Growth Management Committee Item 3: Performance Measures, a copy of which is included under item three in the agenda packet. She said she may support integration of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Regional Framework Plan performance measures.

Councilor McCaig said she strongly disagrees with the subcommittee about deferring the determination of corrective actions. She said it is important to have at least a draft of the kinds of actions that would be considered corrective actions, because they could influence the kind of performance measures that the Council adopts. Doing one without understanding the other is not as helpful. The Council will always have difficulty finding consensus on the corrective actions. She said she does not know what scale they take; she does not have a context for the corrective actions. She said that while the corrective actions do not need to be in final form, the world of corrective actions ought to at least be presented to the committee so that it understands its implications. Councilor McCaig said that in her opinion, the preliminary draft does not meet the Council’s intent. She said that originally, the Council expected to have a final document by now that included corrective actions. The reality has been that the work and the complexity of the issue far exceeded the early understanding of it. It has taken a longer time than anticipated, but is probably satisfactory.

Councilor Morissette said it is hard for him to sit at Metro and tell local governments how to act. However, he fears that Metro and the local jurisdictions will stay in denial of the problem. Corrective actions will allow local jurisdictions to adjust their goals to a more realistic level. In his opinion, local governments have committed to a lot more than they can realistically accomplish, and once they see the numbers, they will adjust their plans.

Councilor McLain said that there are different corrective actions that may be applicable to a Metro responsibility, versus a local jurisdiction ongoing adjustment. It would be helpful to have a list of possible corrective actions that could be local, versus a more regional expectation. That would tell the committee more about issues surrounding the budget and the ongoing review of the UGB. Councilor McLain said the other two policy determination questions depend on the process the Council uses to bring urban reserves into the UGB.

Mr. Turpel said there is a list of possible corrective actions included on pages fifteen and sixteen of the preliminary draft. The corrective actions were initially listed as Metro actions that would take place under certain triggers. The subcommittee members indicated that they would prefer to receive the information much sooner than the two year reporting, so that local jurisdictions could see potential problems and have the option to take corrective action before Metro needs to take action. The subcommittee said it is interested in looking at the other performance measures before it does further work on the very broad description of what corrective actions might be like.

Chair Naito said that she is concerned about integration Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Regional Framework Plan performance measures because some of the things that Metro will try to measure, in terms of livability, are very difficult to measure, e.g. parks. The quality and location of a park may be more important than the size. She is concerned about putting too many resources into measuring things that are intangible. She said it is very difficult to talk about potential corrective actions until the problem is known. She recommended that the subcommittee not spend a lot of time on corrective actions at this point. However, she does support the idea of not waiting until the two year period to publish the results. She said the 1997 results should be available by May. She suggested that the Growth Management Committee review the status of the variables at that time and try to foresee any problems. There may be some interim actions Metro or local jurisdictions can take. She said she finds the draft performance measures satisfactory and will wait to hear legal counsel’s analysis of it at one of the next Growth Management Committee meetings.

Councilor McCaig said that in regards to the memo from the Performance Measures Subcommittee to MPAC, she agrees with ninety percent of the recommendations. She said there is a natural aversion to deal directly with the corrective actions and that the longer the Metro Council postpones it, the harder it will be to decide what is possible and who has the authority to implement the corrective actions. She said she would rather move along at a corresponding pace with the development of the performance measures, rather than doing them sequentially.

Ms. Lynch said that in response to Chair Naito’s comments about the livability measures, she would like to clarify that the subcommittee believes its charge is to look at the Council’s policies in the Regional Framework Plan and select a group of performance measures that will help assure the Council’s policies are being met. She said she hopes that the performance measures suggested meet that criteria and directly relate to the Regional Framework Plan policies. In addition, the subcommittee wants to initially create something that begins to work and sets up a process, which the Council might choose to expand, depending on its conversations with departments, local jurisdictions, and the public.

Councilor Morissette said he believes the best way to make a decision is the closest to the people: Hillsboro probably has a better idea of how to solve its goals that Metro or the City of Portland. Having said that, he said that in his opinion, he has seen cities give overly optimistic numbers regarding what they can do on infill. he said it is very difficult to see the disconnect when he sees the implementation differently in the real world. He said that during the discussion of corrective actions, he would like to have a discussion with local governments about how well they are meeting their Region 2040 goals.

Chair Naito said the committee will review the topic again with input from legal counsel.

Ms. Lynch said the budget implications will be very important. The Council will need to let staff and volunteers know how much money the Council wants to spend and how many experts it wants to call to determine reasonable, measurable performance measures for less-tangible livability goals.

Councilor McCaig said that when performance measures were first discussed, the whole goal was that since Metro already collects some information, it could find a way to compile the information for use by others so that local governments and Metro would know if they were on target. That was the entire scope. She said she still believes that Metro collects information and that there are ways to compile that information to give it to people so that it provides a view of the world that allows them to make adjustments if necessary in achieving their goals. It gets more expensive as time goes on.

4.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

·  PRIORITIZING UPCOMING MAJOR ISSUES

Chair Naito directed the committee’s attention to the list of possible 1998 work products, which is included under item four in the agenda packet. She said she would like to discuss as a committee how to prioritize the list. She would like to focus on the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 3 Model Ordinance, which has been under discussion and work for the past two years. A lot of headway has been made, and staff is currently doing community outreach. Another top priority is how to accomplish master planning and still comply with State law. She said Councilor Ed Washington has taken up the issue of affordable housing, and suggested the committee ask him to report directly to MPAC and the full Council on his progress.

Councilor Morissette said his main priority is the UGB expansion. Affordable housing is a festering problem, and he would like to spend time discussing incentive-based solutions. Other important issues include an adequate supply of land, regulatory relief incentives for affordable housing, and any problems that appear during the year. He said he supports the list in the agenda packet and agrees with its organization. He said that the Council needs to ensure that this region remains a good place to live, which means a strong job market, affordable housing, and parks and open spaces.

Councilor McLain said the list was previously given to MPAC and the MPAC Council Coordinating Committee. MPAC plans to address two of the issues in the next four to five months: developing functional plans for schools and parks, and the Regional Funding and Fiscal Section of the Regional Framework Plan. The Growth Management Committee should discuss Metro’s level of responsibility to further the goals of the Regional Framework Plan. Item number twelve, Small City Functional Plan Compliance Limited Waiver, is a piece of work left over from last year. Councilor McLain has drafted an ordinance pertaining to this issue. She requested that the ordinance be placed on the Growth Management Committee agenda as soon as possible. The ordinance has been presented to MPAC.

Councilor McCaig said she is interested in the regional funding issue. She said she is concerned that the Growth Management Committee’s agenda is being driven by the expectations of local governments or by the next steps of the Regional Framework Plan and UGB amendment. The Council needs to set the next vision and consider what will happen after the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Region 2040 Growth Concept are completed.

Councilor Morissette said the Council has done little but talk, while the region has gone from the most affordable housing market in the country to the least affordable housing market.

Councilor McCaig asked if the Portland metro region really has the least affordable housing market.

Councilor Morissette said that in his opinion it does. He said it is an arguable point based on how the statistical information is analyzed. If the region is not number one, it is number two for a major metropolitan area, and that is a big problem. Councilor Morissette said it is an excellent idea to look ahead, but so far the Council has not done anything in the way of solutions. The Council has continued to debate about the urban growth boundary and affordable housing, but in the meantime people’s ability to afford things has eroded. He recommended that the committee maintain its focus on the solutions and the Council’s legal requirements. He said it is possible to get through these discussions quickly. Unfortunately, the Council will probably receive some bad press and be accused of not bringing everyone along. Councilor Morissette said he is not too worried about that because, quite frankly, people are being hurt and the press does not matter. Once solutions have been reached, the committee should look at setting the next vision.

Chair Naito asked Councilor Morissette if he would like the Growth Management Committee to take up the affordable housing issues that he mentioned. She said her idea was to address the issue of affordable housing as a full Council.

Councilor Morissette said it is hard to state how the committee would frame that discussion. To make a good region, an adequate supply of land is needed, along with a regulatory process that allows density infill to be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. The Council needs to talk about who pays for growth and how. Councilor Morissette said a process is already is place to pay for growth and infrastructure: the bonding authority. Until there is a better system in place, the region should use the system it has. He said the committee can start developing solutions to the problems of infrastructure, affordable housing, and adequate transportation funding. He said he does not want the committee to spend its time on esoteric debates about a regional vision while people cannot afford to stay in the region.

Councilor McLain said the Council’s top priority needs to be the orderly review of the UGB amendment, which the Council is legally required to do. It will not be easy or take the pressure off of Metro, but it is necessary for good urban reserve planning to create more livable communities. Until now, the committee has been faced with a series of legal, Metro Charter, and production requirements and tight deadlines. This is the first year the Growth Management Committee has had an opportunity to consider the larger picture.

Chair Naito said the committee will set aside time for brainstorming and general discussion about its long-term goals. She thanked the committee members for a very lively and interesting debate.

There being no other business before the committee, Chair Naito adjourned the meeting at 2:38 P.M.

Submitted by,

Suzanne Myers

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1998\grwthmgt\01208gmm.doc

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1998

The following have been included as part of the official public record:

Oral Testifiers (testimony cards included)

Performance Measures

 Peggy Lynch